Rare is the day when I do not receive some kind of email linked to the following issue.

I will use “evangelicals” in this equation, since that is the most common religious flock mentioned in these missives. You also see this equation play out with “Catholic voters,” “Jews and Israel,” “New Yorkers,” “Democrats” (and “Republicans”) and lots of other niches in public life.

It is one thing to say that “evangelicals” are doing such and such or are responsible for a specific trend/event that is in the news. Think about that recent New York Times headline — now tweaked — that read: “The Road to Coronavirus Hell Was Paved by Evangelicals.”

Making blanket statements of that kind — about evangelicals, Jews, journalists or any other group — requires either (a) massive amounts of solid reporting or some combination of (b) ego and/or (c) hatred.

Frequently, journalists need to carefully look at the evidence and add words such as “most,” “some” or even “a few.” They may need to limit their judgmental statements to certain zip codes or subgroups of a larger whole (there are many kinds of Baptists, for example).

With that in mind, consider the following New York Times story that — #WAITFORIT — deserves some praise for not putting all evangelicals and even megachurch pastors in the same boat during the coronavirus crisis. And, yes, I am returning to an important topic that was just addressed by our own Julia Duin. Here’s the double-decker Times headline: “

Florida Pastor Arrested After Defying Virus Orders

The sheriff of Hillsborough County said the Rev. Rodney Howard-Browne, a Pentecostal pastor, endangered the lives of his parishioners by holding services on Sunday.

Yes, that preacher — again. Here is the overture:

MIAMI — Before the Rev. Rodney Howard-Browne, the pastor of a Pentecostal megachurch in Florida, held two church services on Sunday — each filled with hundreds of parishioners — lawyers from the sheriff’s office and local government pleaded with him to reconsider putting his congregation in danger of contracting the coronavirus.

The pastor ignored them, proceeding with the services at the River at Tampa Bay Church and even providing bus transportation for members who needed a ride.

On Monday, Sheriff Chad Chronister of Hillsborough County said he had obtained an arrest warrant for Mr. Howard-Browne for “intentionally and repeatedly” defying emergency orders mandating that people maintain social distance and stay at home.

“His reckless disregard for human life put hundreds of people in his congregation at risk and thousands of residents who may interact with them this week in danger,” Sheriff Chronister, who is a Republican, said at a news conference in Tampa. “Our goal here is not to stop anyone from worshiping, but the safety and well-being of our community must always come first.”

Florida is, as usual, a complex and rather confusing place to live. There are all kinds of tensions in play between the state government and radically different communities between Key West and the Georgia border. So there is a government story here, as well as a religion story.

But there are interesting First Amendment issues in play. See this:

The pastor had claimed the First Amendment protected him from having to follow the order. Andrew Warren, the state attorney for Hillsborough County, said emergency orders “are constitutional and valid” and apply to everyone.

“I’d remind the good pastor of Mark 12:31, which says there is no more important commandment than to love thy neighbor as thyself,” said Mr. Warren, a Democrat. “Loving your neighbors is protecting them, not jeopardizing their health by exposing them to this deadly virus.”

One conservative First Amendment group is quoted saying that it plans to defend Howard-Browne. That’s accurate, but it would be easy to find religious and cultural conservatives in better known think tanks who would disagree with that take. Religion is a complex subject, especially when mixed with politics and law.

Still I appreciated that the story ended like this:

Earlier this month, Mr. Howard-Browne, who has been at the White House and prayed over Mr. Trump, had encouraged his parishioners to greet one another despite public health warnings against shaking hands: “This Bible School is open because we are raising revivalists, not pansies,” he said on March 15.

Sheriff Chronister said that lawyers from his office and the county attorney’s office, responding to an anonymous tip, had advised the church’s legal team on Friday that holding services would violate the law. Members of the sheriff’s command staff went to the church in person on Sunday to try to dissuade Mr. Howard-Browne. He would not meet with them, the sheriff said, and held services in the morning and evening.

“They have access to technology allowing them to live stream their services over the internet and broadcast television for more than their 4,000 members to watch from the safety of their own homes,” Sheriff Chronister said. “Instead, they encouraged people to come and gather at church.”

Other area churches, including the 34th Street Church of God, a nondenominational church in Tampa, have shut their doors and moved their services to live stream, the Rev. Thomas Scott said at the news conference.

“We value the importance of the laws of the land, and we value the importance of social distancing,” he said. “And more importantly, protecting our parishioners to make sure that they’re not in harm’s way.”

Note that the piece stayed focused on this one local case and didn’t attempt to turn the notorious RHB into some kind of powerful representative of evangelical megachurch preachers everywhere.

It would have been good for the Times team to have looked at the websites of a few other huge churches in the region, in addition to the 34th Street Church of God. Still, the story wasn’t as simplistic as many others that have been printed in recent weeks.

So what did the Times team avoid, in this case? Consider this this Bloomberg.com headline: “Some Megachurches Are Still Packing In Crowds.”

The word “some” in that headline does help, a little bit. Maybe. Kind of. Here is the lede:

Congregants of megachurches in Louisiana, Ohio and Florida attended services in defiance of social distancing orders on Sunday morning, even as politicians and doctors took to weekly news shows to warn of coronavirus’s spread in the U.S.

This short story ends with a summary paragraph that starts like this:

Some megachurches have opted out of in-person services and turned to live streaming entirely.

So “some” megachurches are fighting the safety measures and “some” are finding ways to obey them, while striving to meet the worship needs of their people.

Does this present an accurate picture of this national drama?

No way. The number of churches — in a wide variety of traditions — that are going online, while keeping social ministries open to help the poor, is huge in comparison with those that are rebelling. Based on a quick scan of evangelical websites (denominations and megachurches) the groups that are cooperating with civil authorities are much larger and more influential than the small number of churches — many of them independent — that are keeping their doors open.

So what did Bloomberg pros need to say if the goal was an accurate picture of the larger story?

“A few” megachurches are still packing in crowds, while “most” or even the “vast majority” are being flexible and safe? Why say “some” are and “some” are not? That’s sort of accurate, but ultimately misleading.

In conclusion, let me point journalists and readers to a Providence essay on the First Amendment issues that loom over these stories. It is written by Paul Marshall, a former colleague of mine in The Media Project that created GetReligion.org long ago and backed the website for many years.

It ends with this. The following is long, but essential:

… (C)hurches have criticized and denied communion to politicians whom they believe are violating church teachings, and it is not, so far, in dispute that a church can decide for itself who may receive communion. This is an authority over politicians, not the power of the sword but a discipline over the sacraments. Our secular age may regard this as minor opprobrium, but many politicians with eyes on polls may take it more seriously. It is the power not of the sword but of the word.

On the other side, a government may legitimately close buildings, including church buildings, if a fire marshal properly pronounces the structure unsafe. Even in actually constructing church buildings, churches do and must follow government fire and building codes. They accept proper government restrictions on the nature of their sanctuary.

Church and state have legitimate authority over each other in their respective spheres as long as they do not seek to usurp the proper role of the other. A church cannot try to take over governmental power or use physical coercion. A government cannot dictate a church’s doctrine or mission. 

Governments internationally, and federally within the US, have imposed widely varying restrictions, and there can certainly be arguments about the range and prudence in each particular case. But, as a matter of principle, I believe that in Western democracies most of the disputed government actions around the coronavirus are necessary, somewhat like the fire marshal writ large. Such restrictions are for a limited time, even if we do not now know what that time limit is. They also do not single out the church—these are rules to be applied to almost any gathering. And they do not seek to usurp church teachings or mission. 

Each individual case needs prudential judgment but, in principle, I believe that restrictions on religious gatherings are legitimate government actions, and that churches and others should as a matter of conscience follow them.

Read it all.